Monday, November 2, 2009

I know i usually forget to do this, but I'm making this post now in case you want to talk about the highly unusual comic 657. Yes, I know that if you read this by RSS feed, it makes it more difficult. To you people I say, just check back wednesday night. Also, if you are reading this by RSS you are most likely Rob, in which case i hate you and you should get the hell off my blog.

A few quick thoughts

-Regardless of what anyone says, this comic is very, very impressive, and clearly took a lot of thought and care to produce. I don't want to think about how hard it is. This doesn't excuse any of Randall's earlier lazy comics, but it does show that when he wants to, he can do something intense like this.

-to the always classy sje on the forums: You are a moron, there is only one critic on this site who matters, and that is me, and I read it right, and have seen the movie like a billion times. That clever little "let the voice of one person stand in for the whole website" is lame, and if I were to use it, I might assume that all of the xkcd forums were filled with giant assholes that reveled in the mistakes of others.

------PS i thought of an xkcd comic today and I want to say it now, so xkcd fans can tell me is sucks and then will have to backtrack when xkcd inevitably makes the same joke - it would basically a twitter post version of Fermat's last theorem, saying that 140 characters was not enough to explain it fully. Math reference + Internet Twist = XKCD Gold.

also, how long before we get a logical journey of the zoombinis comic? Maybe Mr. Hat is playing the game and uses all sorts of practical, assholeish tactics to avoid the usual logical rules.

This is an impressive comic. A lot of the usual anti-xkcd folks are impressed with it, and I fall into that category as well. Let's break it into two distinct parts, the charts themselves and the joke or jokes.

The charts are cool. Now granted, this sort of thing is not original; the most famous chart in the world (according to some sources), the Napoleon's Forces one, is of this style. It's actually a chart which xkcd has referenced before (incidentally, I could have sworn he referred to it twice. lots of cookies to whoever can find another example). Even the idea of doing it for a story dates at least to Slaughterhouse-Five, as many people have pointed out. But that's really not the point - I don't want to criticize him for that; unlike many other examples it's really completely fine that he's done this. I just want to make sure that all the fans who are like "oh wow he is so brilliant to think of using graphics to see where people move as time goes on!" know that they are dumb.

The Lord of the Rings chart, covering 1000 pages of novel as it does, is of course the most impressive. Particularly if it was done entirely freehand, as I suspect, it would have taken many tries and many drafts, and many consultations of the book. His blog post sheds a tiny amount of light on this (but I warn you - do not click on that animation link at the end....). The Star Wars graph, while clearly simpler, is also impressive on its own. And I guess Jurassic Park as well.

The presentation of the graphs leaves a bit to be desired - on the front page, they are just far too small to make anything of, and the "joke panels," discussed below, are shunted off in the bottom where the eye is not really able read them, let alone concentrate on them. But is there anyone out there who seriously doubts that this will not be turned into a poster, probably before christmas, and that Randall had this in mind when he made it? Any copyright lawyers out there who know if this would constitute fair use or not?

But of course, xkcd is a comic, and so it can't just show you something cool, no matter how cool it is. It has to make a joke. And this comic, I think, tries to make two. First, 12 Angry Men, a great movie but one where nearly the whole thing takes place in one jury room, so the chart version is comically simple. Ha ha, I guess. You wonder why he didn't go even more sparse and do a well known two-person movie, like My Dinner With Andre. Or a single line with The Cube. Whatever.

Then the real joke is the last graph, Primer, a movie so complicated that I've seen it 4 times and still have some key questions about just what is happening. It's not the crazy jumble that Randall makes it out to be (for one thing, like most time travel stories, the time travelers create duplicates of themselves when they go back in time) and it is, in fact, comprehensible. Nonetheless, that is how the movie feels, the first time you watch it. Unfortunately, I couldn't enjoy the joke. So few people know this movie that to me it just felt like Randall the insecure nerd trying to prove that he's heard of this cool nerd movie. Most people who have just discovered it, like me, did so either directly or indirectly because The Onion AV Club brought it a lot of attention this summer. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that Randall just watched it recently, and wants to tell people - like he did with House of Leaves - that he is just as well versed in nerdery as they.

In comparison to the nearly overwhelming impact of the "serious" panels, these last two jokes ("12 angry men is simple" and "primer is complicated") seem pretty pathetic. Why not just skip them entirely and leave us with only the high quality stuff?

Of course, had he done that, there's a good chance I would have said "this is cool and all, but it's not funny. It's not trying to be funny. Isn't xkcd supposed to be a webcomic?" and I would have been right.

That's why Randall Munroe should stop trying to be funny, as I have said a thousand times. By trying and failing, he's just bringing down the quality of the good stuff, like the serious panels in this comic. That's why he needs to scrap the webcomic format entirely and move all his fans over to Randall Munroe's World-Famous Death Defying Amazing Picto-Blog and he should do it as soon as he possibly can.

This was a very cool installment of xkcd. But it only reinforced to me that Randall does have good ideas, and xkcd is not the best channel for them.

210 comments:

Awesome comic, just awesome. Carefully put together, a ton of effort, and a good punchline. At least half of what made the punchline good was the fact that he didn't use any of the obvious time-travelling movies, like Back to the Future or The Time Machine.

That being said, the forum discussion shows how deep the xkcd following has sunk. Seriously, you want the Back to the Future timeline? There's maybe two or three timelines, they are completely straightforward to keep track of, it would be a boring graph to look at, and it would be TOO OBVIOUS, you freaking bunch of Captain Obviouses.

Also, death by explosion to all the idiots who logged in to complain about minor details in the LotR and SW sagas. I cannot compare you to anything but small children eager to show off their knowledge of Pokemon.

While i thought it was impressive, when i got to the end and saw that it was bascially all a setup for a Primer referance, that made it lame somehow. Yeah he did all this elaborate mapping, but in the end the joke is: this time travel movie is confusing!

Ya it's a pretty cool graph and it obviously took a while to do, but isn't XKCD supposed to be a comedy site? Ya ya, it's "A WEBCOMIC OF ROMANCE SARCASM, MATH AND LANGUAGE.", but come on, you read XKCD to (supposedly) laugh, not to read a fancy graph showing off how you know how many dicks Frodo sucked, and there just doesn't seem to be a joke here.

Maybe I just don't get the joke, I mean what is it? That 'Primer' is confusing? That '12 Angry Men' is simple? Oh hahaha...

i was super unsure as to how i felt about this comic when i first read it. i think i like it, though. as you have already said, it clearly took a giant ton of effort. not sure if it really qualifies as having a punchline, but i feel like it does--the huge, barely readable collection of gigantic charts annoyed the shit out of me at first but i guess that is sort of the point when you get to the Primer chart.

how long do you think it will take for this one to make it to the store though?

also, sje, shut the fuck up. you are lonely and stupid. at least have the balls to whine about us here, hmm?

To mr. novemeber 2, 1:28, the 12 angry men joke was pretty funny to me after having spent like 15 minutes looking over the LOTR graph following various people's stories etc and 5 minutes on star wars, then scrolling down to see 12 straight lines.

This site is (or should be) about impartial criticism, and that doesn't work very well when you convince yourself that the comic you're about to look at is bad before you see it.

One of the more prominent and consistent criticisms about xkcd lately have been laziness and bad humor, and to my eyes this one addresses both of those. Let's hope it lasts.

It's definitely taken a lot of effort and actually looks pretty impressive. So tons of credit to Randall for actually pulling it off. I didn't care for the Primer graph, I think the 12 Angry Men one is a much subtler (and much funnier) joke.

I was left with a kind of empty feeling after seeing it, though. I mean, yeah, it's impressive, and interesting to follow the various lines, but it's not like it lead to any sort of interesting insight in the plots or relationships in those movies. I mean, its as if someone wrote an amazingly detailed analysis of Ben Hur, and in the end the only thing you come away with is "Yes, I guess that's exactly what happened in Ben Hur."

Still, we complain about Randall's lack of effort a lot here, so I day we should definitely recognize it when he does something impressive, like this.

This could actually be a useful literary analysis tool; the basic statistics of character interaction actually show a lot about the story. But, I have seen this before: not anywhere Randall is likely to have, true, but nontheless: http://www.natchevil.com/comic.php?comicID=333&viewMode=chapter

Certainlly, very impressive visually and artisitically, and its obvious what the joke was (The convential charts being replaced by the straight forward chart and then the batshit insane nonesensical one)

But since I'd never seen or even heard of primer before today, it failed to be funny in anyway whatsoever.

Not funny to me since I hadn't heard of Primer and I only smiled at the 12 Angry Men joke. Nonetheless, I was impressed by the attention to detail in the original charts. It was much more impressive than a chuckleworthy xkcd even if I did not laugh at it.

Impressive but not funny. Primer could use more subtlety, as of right now it is all "WOAH LOOK HOW WILD AND CRAZY THIS IS, SOO UNPREDICTABLE!" when it would be better served by holding the appearance of the other graphs but then turning out to be a mess as the artist gives up on trying to portray the events. Perhaps even add a second layer to the humor of showing the guy who is drawing all these charts?

Man you guys who are criticizing this comic are being unreasonable, this was the best xkcd in a long, long time. You don't need to have seen 12 Angry Men or Primer to get the jokes, if you read the graphs and you're confused, then the problem is that you're not very perceptive. And if you don't find it amusing, then you're probably just being stubborn. If he had made it so that you had to click to get to the next graph then the punchlines might have worked better, but even seeing all of them at once, it still elicited a laugh from me.

I think it's fine for Xkcd to be things that are 'interesting' rather than 'funny' once in a while, if it's this impressive. That's why the Primer joke seems forced/tacked on -- as if he was unsure if it was ok to go without an obvious punchline (although I admit that the 12 Angry Men one is more subtly amusing in its own right).

Slight disappointment in 12 Angry Men. I would have liked to seen the progression of Henry Fonda starting out along then the rest of the jurors piece by piece coming over to his side. The first impression I got of using Primer was that RanDULL saying "I've seen an obscure SF (real geeks don't use sci-fi)movie you probably havn't seen. Therefore I am cooler than you. QED bitches"

But despite the critism, at least he made an effort this time and I applaud that.

This strip definitely took a hell of a lot of effort. It's stupid to deny that, so, yeah, amazing effort. But what's the point of it? What's the purpose of all that effort? For one, I won't accept the explanation that the first charts are a set up for a joke; those two last panels were tacked on for the sake of "humour". Hell, do you, for a minute, suppose Randall did NOT make this with the intention of selling posters? And the posters are for what? The jokes? Yeah, sure: just look at how many morons are nitpicking on minor mistakes.

And what boggles my mind is that there's really no purpose for these charts. If you've seen the films, you'll only see in the charts things you already know. If you DIDN'T see the films, you'd probably not look at them to avoid being spoiled. So, people would only read the charts to see what they already know? Just to feel all geeky and cool? Yes, well, that just affirms my bitterness towards xkcd as something that turns "nerdiness" into something fashionable and commercial, like chewing gum. Randall didn't do this for art, or for humour. But that is his choice, I can't do anything about it. Is he getting money? Good for him. Should I admire his effort? Surely. But I should not respect it. I don't wear xkcd as a badge of geeky coolness; I actually find that very degrading. So, in short? Fuck this comic. The only good thing it did was to get me interested in 12 Angry Men and Primer (yes! The "joke" had the inverse effect on me!).

Wow this is my first time ever seeing this site, and I am just about shocked to death that it exists and is popular to any degree. What horrible nasty snotty pretentious killjoys you are. I hope you all die in a fire. I never thought I'd find myself rooting on the trolls of any forum.

Unlike the vast majority of comics, this is a good comic. The joke may not be laugh-out-loud funny and it may not deliver any mind-blowing revelations but it was interesting to look at, and that's what counts.

"Wow this is my first time ever seeing this site, and I am just about shocked to death that it exists and is popular to any degree. What horrible nasty snotty pretentious killjoys you are. I hope you all die in a fire. I never thought I'd find myself rooting on the trolls of any forum."

Come back when you have something to say that we haven't heard a thousand times before.

----Austin Kleon Says: September 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pm Forgot about this excerpt from the first chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five:

"As a trafficker in climaxes and thrills and characterization and wonderful dialogue and suspense and confrontations, I had outlined the Dresden story many times. The best outline I ever made, or anyway the prettiest one, was on the back of a roll of wallpaper.

"I used my daughter’s crayons, a different color for each main character. One end of the wallpaper was the beginning of the story, and the other end was the end, and then there was all that middle part, which was the middle. And the blue line met the red line and then the yellow line, and the yellow line stopped because the character represented by the yellow line was dead. And so on. The destruction of Dresden was represented by a vertical band of orange cross-hatching, and all the lines that were still alive passed through it, came out the other side.

"The end, where all the lines stopped, was a beetfield on the Elbe, outside of Halle."----

Anon 9:50What horrible nasty snotty pretentious killjoys you are. I hope you all die in a fire.Well. You are certainly a pleasant, humble, totally not hypocritical pollyanna.

I like the version of the graph story in A Man without a country better than that one. But I am a fan of anything Kurt Vonnegut may do, only partially because our names are so similar (first and last!)

I, for one, am interested in Person #1's Visions of the XKCD future. Actually, I'd like to hear every last detail of it (perhaps in an e-mail if you think other people are not as interested). I'm curious how many comics he showed you, what you said about them, and what if anything he changed before the final version in light of your comments (or if he just went ahead and published them unchanged, ignoring your comments). If he made you keep it a secret I understand, but do tell me what you can.

WOW. You now need to take that line in your FAQ, "I may be a douche but I'm not a hypocrite", and change it to "I may be a douche, but I'm also a MUCH bigger hypocrite."

Also "Amanda":

> "at least have the balls to whine about us here, hm?"

WOW. WOW WOW WOW. I willing to bet you're actually stuck SO far up your own ass, that the massive, ridiculous, unbelievably obcene amounts of hypocricy of that statement actualy never even ocurred to you as you wrote it. Truly astounding.

I figured you guys would be interested, but apparently all that earns me is being bitched at. This is incidentally the only site I've mentioned him on because I really don't think it's that big of a deal, but here it just feels relevant. I'm sorry (I'm not) if that comes off as namedropping.

Carl - He's shown me 2 comics (the wifi and the rock climbing one) - one he made for himself that he did not consider running, some of his sketchbook pages (one which had drafts of the 9/11 kid one - I mentioned these in some other comment) and the black and white no text version of the star wars thing.

This was all more of less casual, and not in a "I'll show you this and you work on it" way, I didn't know he would run the star wars one (as I said above), for example. He just said he was making something awesome, and showed me the draft, letting me guess what it was (I guessed incorrectly, it was just lines without names)

We've talked about plenty of other things before he showed me anything, I didn't think he ever would. I guess he was just building trust (So I don't leak his future xkcds? I don't know). I can tell you that he's a pretty normal guy who doesn't seem self-obsessed or on an ego-trip at all. He's quite pleasant to talk to, actually.

I'm not sure how much he would listen to my advice, because for the two comics he's shown me I haven't said much, as he had caught me at a really bad moment where I didn't have a lot of time. I told him the rock climbing one had been done before (I was talking about the first example that came to my mind, which was an old donald duck comic).

From what he's explained me, his routine is not that well prepared as it has been rumored (he ran the comics a few days after he showed me), he's told me himself that he just sketches something up he thinks might be funny.

I said sje was being a dick for two reasons - 1, because he was clearly taking joy in people here making simple mistakes, which I think is completely reasonable of them (unless they insist that they are right later, which they have not). You say I am a hypocrite because of this. that is wrong. I do the same thing, and (here's the key part!) i admit that i am a huge dick. you quoted it yourself - "I may be a douche but I'm not a hypocrite." To be a hypocrite would be to say "When I do it I am not being a dick but when sje does it, he is being a dick." But I'm not saying that - I'm saying we're the same.

The second part of my statement was an attempt at irony: Yes, it is true that the xkcd forums are filled with obnoxious jerks, but I know that because I have read most of what they wrote, not because I am extrapolating from sje's comment. Rob, if I am misusing "irony" there please correct me. Everyone else, if you think I am misusing "irony" then SHUT UP BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE WORD, only rob does.

are we all clear now?

P#1: I think it's cool that he showed you comics, ignore all those other people (other people: don't worry i still love you). I am sure that he is in fact a nice person most of the time - but: what if you gave him mroe explicit feedback? Do you think he would change things, or do you think he would just say "no, you're wrong, this is fine." I suspect it is the later (even while I hope it is the former) in which case: is that really being all that nice?

"It's a f*cking webcomic, does it have to have a point? It's not like you pay to see it or anything."

Yes, but you pay for his posters. And knowing his fanbase, you wouldn't need to look at that strip for more than 2 seconds to realise there'd be tons of requests for posters. And as far as I can see, that's the ONLY thing that could justify such a monstrous behemoth of a graph-strip, because otherwise, what IS the interest value of that? What would be so awesome and interesting other than the amount of effort Randall put in it? And what is the value of effort for its own sake? Say, it would certainly be hard and time-consuming to create the world's greatest pile of turd, it would take a huge amount of effort, but in the end, it would be only that: a pile of turd.

I say again: if Randall did this for commercial purposes, it's his choice, he's entirely entitled to it and I wouldn't be stupid to call him a "sell-out" as if I had been betrayed. But I do find it degrading to turn geekiness into fashion. Look at what happened with emo: it used to be a sincere, earnest movement in the 80's, and look at what it is now! The Internet is doing the same to geekiness. I'm not saying Randall is responsible, but he surely is in that bandwagon. Now, if Randall did NOT make that for the sake of selling posters, but instead did it for the "cool" factor, then I'll promptly take back everything I said. But still, I see no value in it.

Try to make a webcomic that does not include:-Weak alt text-Unrealistic dialogue-Bad art-Internet memes-Math-Anything that's done before-Weak punchline-Science-Too little dialogue/too much dialogue-Relationships that are weird-Sex-Holes in plot-Gaming-Bad graphs-Emphasizing that something is bad-Internet-Shortening phrases like "she's gaming" so it would fit in the panel-Any 'old joke'-Anything that leaves the reader with no thoughts-Anything that's not funny-Any merchandise-Misspelled words-Wrong math-Anything that strays away from your motto-Anything's that untrue

And it has to be perfect in everyway, a fantastic breakthrough that makes you laugh heartily for 10 minutes straight. Then, try making that kind of comic several times each week.

Even if that happens, I doubbt there will be praise. Tough crowd.

Also, today's post is like a no-no for criticizing. What would you think if you spent like the whole night perfecting this thing and then some guy *cough fernie cough* just dismisses it casually with a couple of words he thought up the past 5 minutes.

Anyway, sorry for Carl or anyone like that. It's just that it's kind of hard for Randall to do ANYTHING. Okay? LISTEN TO ONE OF THESE COMMENTS. JEEZ.

First: success on the internet, or in general, is not strongly correlated with talent. This is a thing which most people miss. You can be much more talented than someone who is published and makes fortunes on their cartoons/writing/etc and still not be as successful as them.

Second: Criticizing something does not mean that the person leveling the critique asserts their ability to produce better. See also 'stupid responses to criticism.'

Third: Merely because making something perfect is difficult does not mean that no criticism is valid. This is important! Few critics will assert the existence of a perfect comic. Even my favorites have off days.

Fourth: A bad comic is not defined merely by having Something Wrong With It, but by having a preponderance of errors, especially easily avoided ones, and a lack of redeeming qualities. It is the lack of redeeming qualities which is truly significant here, because it's not something you can easily write about--those redeeming qualities are simply absent.

Psssst Cuddlefish 6:01, nobody ever claimed to be better at making webcomics, and the skills for critical analysis and entertainment media and the skills for creatively making it are entirely different. For instance, since it's the easiest to understand example, let's use music. If I am incapable of breaking my thinking away from a combination of Opeth and Meshuggah, and always end up with something derivative when I compose, does this make me unable to recognize the clear derivative of Radiohead that is Foo Fighters?

Cuddlefish 6:01, be careful there. Mr. Lostman is a an experienced webcomic artist, who has done a number of short-running but respectably successful strips. He's just so sick of people like you who use the same, tired, utterly fallacious arguments that he doesn't even bother to elaborate. It honestly isn't necessary to do so anyway.

So watch it before you make a fool of yourself with such ignorant judgments.

Anon, I just think that having no experience in their field and saying how horrible they are is just plain uncalled for.

PSSSSSSST: What does that even matter about? The situations in which these two statements are completely different. We don't know if the chef is cooking an extremely hard dish or just messed up. No, I wouldn't have the right to criticize the chef because I would not have known if he tried a complex meal or tried to do something different, because i'm not in his 'field.' If I was, i could be sure that he just sucks. I'm not saying that the webcomic is like that, but may just be some sketchings a guy thought was funny posted on the internet. Seriously, lostman. I know XKCD sucks these days. We don't know if he's busy this year or something's happening, or maybe he's just running out of ideas.

You still really would be an asshole if you wrote out charts or criticized daily about something spent 5 minutes on each posting day.

If you guys trash the same stupid responses, it's because we're stating something really obvious. It's like a trap. (Why are you calling me cuddlefish anyways?)

Lint of Death: In english, wouldn't it be "This is life". I'm ignoring the possibility of a non direct translation.

Rob: STOP LUMPING CUDDLEFISH INTO ONE HOMOGENOUS BEING!:(.

And to all the arguing anons: This blog deals very little in the manner of perfection. We don't expect XKCD to be perfect, but for something Randall can self-sustain himself on, we expect a fair and honest amount of work. That's what we argue about, if Randall deserves his kudos, or if the fans are simply dogs, eating what he gives because it's all they've got.

To be completely honest, on a typical workday, the latest comic would have sufficed. But if it takes significant time & effort to come up with, draw, and upload some of the other XKCD's, you're probably not a very interesting person.

I think it's pretty obvious that there are going to be poster requests for this and Randy is going to be so nice and charge a mere 19.99 for it... I'm not knocking an attempt to make money, but when you crap all over your base 99% of the time and only make 1% of gold in order to sell it, that's a pretty terrible thing to do. Why even bother with all the crap?

Although, this is the anon that typoed "critical analysis of entertainment media" to "bla bla and bla bla", to the guy who made the chef comparison, that's a bad one, since outside of media, the skills for competence and the skills for recognizing it are actually the same skills generally.

This may or may not be intentional, but I think Randall is enough of a graph nerd for it to be one:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minard.png

That's a rather famous infographic that displays data relating to an army's inevitable defeat. Though the meaning of the visuals is not similar (here, the black line is survivors from the brown line retreating home), the appearance of the orc invasion in the LOTR graph -- right down to color choices -- certainly seemed like a bit of an homage.

Either way: neat comic. Haven't seen Primer myself, but the 12 Angry Men gag was pretty nice.

Bullshit. I'm better at critiquing poetry than I am at writing it, and I'm much better at film review than I am at filmmaking. Studying literature does not mean learning how to write, for instance. It doesn't require a musician to be able to write about music intelligently. Even visual art doesn't require an artist to critique intelligently.

fernie it doesn't mean shit that people will buy randall's posters. people can buy whatever the hell they want with their own money. it's just annoying as hell to see that any xkcd, regardless of the amount of effort put into it, is within like the first top ten search results for any topic ever. then when randall makes a bigger effort than normal, it's nice to see--until it pops up everywhere all over the damn internet with people going omfg this is why i love xkcd, this is just gold right here.

to the idiot who wrote out a whole list of things we should try to not include in our webcomic, just a quick note: you are a dumbass. i don't care if a comic involves a mention of sex, or an awkward relationship, or whatever--as long as that isn't the entire punchline. a lot of xkcds rely entirely on "omfg lulz they're having secks lol lol lulz," and that just isn't a proper joke. so asking us to write a comic that dare not mention sex just to prove to us that we have unrealistic expectations makes you sound just so, so dumb. i'm talking like some of the biggest amount of dumb i have seen on this blog, and i have seen a lot of dumb around here.

take solace in the knowledge that you aren't dumber than rob, though, no one is dumber than him

It should also be pointed out to all those unfortunates who are of the opinion that you are not qualified to criticise something unless you are yourself an expert in the field, that, by their logic, they equally have no right or no place praising Xkcd. If we, as non-comic artists don't know what makes a comic good or bad so can't criticise, they surely likewise don't actually know what makes a comic successful, so can't laud it. What they really seem to be suggesting is that whenever someone comes across something from a field in which he is not himself an expert, he should simply declare himself unfit to judge it and move on.

Heh. One more reason not to go on this site: too much sniping. Couple that with blatant hypocrisy and irrelevant comments, along with nonsensical and illogical criticisms of xkcd...Probably the last time I come here, so don't expect a reply.

Not sure, it's not like he's showing me every comic he's making and the time he did, I didn't really have much time. I think he would be willing to change something I suggested to him (Dialoge, etc.) but I doubt I could convince him to throw away an idea he likes.

This is my personal thoughts, which seem to be, for once, like the thoughts of people here (I generally like XKCD, and read this blog only to see the other side of the debate):This had a lot of work done on it. It was not, however, very funny. I guess I would like it a bit more if I had seen Primer, but even so, all I think it would get is a slightly bigger chuckle than I had originally. I do want a print of the LotR graph. That thing looks like it took at least a few hours.

"fernie it doesn't mean shit that people will buy randall's posters. people can buy whatever the hell they want with their own money."

Yeah, indeed, it's pointless to criticise or condemn people for buying that stuff. They're not harming anyone, and at least in this case it's obvious Randall worked a lot on that thing, so it's unfair to call that "easy money" (unlike, say, the brilliant xkcd tie and the amazing polo shirt). What nags me is that geekiness is not simply an icon of "counterculture", a niche or anything like that: it's a badge of superiority, of smug intellectuality, and the incessant requests for posters of that thing is turning that into an industry. In that way, I shouldn't be even throwing my criticism at Randall, but at his fans; THEY want to hang the poster on their wall just to say "see? I'm a NERD and I like NERDY things that I like NERDY things made about NERDY things, and this makes me SMART". THEY are asking for it (though you could argue Randall already expected that. Heck, *I* could argue that, but I feel I've already went too far with that).

But like every other icon of counterculture, this whole thing has a lifecycle and an expected painful death, when it will be promptly swallowed by something new. We've seen this before: counterculture becomes mainstream culture, and gets destroyed by the NEXT counterculture. Nothing new there. It just pains me that Randall is, maybe unwittingly, contributing to all of that.

This was an amusing, interesting graph poster. It was not a comic or a joke, so don't call it that.

That being said, even though I found this both impressive and amusing, all it proves is that Randall can do cool stuff when he actually puts in the effort. Which means he doesn't normally put that much effort into his comics. Which means he's a lazy motherfucker who underperforms because he knows his fans will let him get away with it.

"I want that poster because I think it looks nice, not because it puts me in a certain elitist nerd culture."

Okay, I wasn't referring to everyone in existence, but more specifically to the folks on the forum who were pleading for a "Back to the Future" graph -- you know, those who only truly like the graph because it references Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, and wouldn't like it so much if it referenced Goodfellas and Catch-22 or something like that instead (fairly complex, but not GEEKY enough!).

OK, so the artistic aspect on some of those graphs is pretty neat, but there's a lot of room for development in that aspect. I wouldn't have a problem with having a graph as a poster solely for its visual beauty, but is this the case here? Aren't there mathematical functions, fractals or things like that which give better results and would probably be more satisfying for actual "nerdy" enthusiast instead of wannabes? (ouch, that sounded elitist, but I'm not saying this as if I were a nerdy enthusiast. I don't give a damn whether I'm a nerd or not)

I don't find this impressive at all. I mean hes's probably put a lot of work into it but its not a unique idea at all, people do it all the time. Oh and the idiot who posted underneath sje. The Wheel of Time has loads of these charts on the encyclopedia website, (I used to read them but not realise that its not really that good, unrealistic characters, etc)

Look, El Duderino, I know that that must have taken hours to do the charts, and I appreciate how dedicated Randall was, but for me, saying Fett died at the Pit of Carkoon is like saying its has an apostrophe when it's possesive. Though he doesn't escape until the EU, a dotted line would be nice.

TomR, you are forgetting something important: the EU sucked, and the Boba Fett fanfiction in the EU sucked most of all. Boba Fett died in the movie. Dead dead dead dead dead. You are a stupid fanboy and deserve stabbings.

...This comment won't really matter since carl will probably post a scathing review of this tomorrow, but incidentally, do any of you main posters enjoy, say, The Far Side? Just in case I wanted to, say, parody this blog.

Do you know what is sad? Because of us, "xkcd sucks" has more results than "CAD Sucks", "Megatokyo sucks" or "C&H sucks" by a large margin (I mean, xkcd can be pretty bad, but no where near as terrible as those listed, and those are all pretty popular too!). Clearly we need compatriots in arms against similarly terrible comic.

This is quite possibly the weakest "nerdy" pun he's ever made. Not enough buildup for a shaggy dog, not enough content to be rewarding for its own sake. Christ. "What if romantic partners were like electron pairs?" I guess single people would sleep in couches.

The LotR one charts the films, not the novels (e.g. no Tom Bombadil, death of Saruman at Isengard, Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath). I agree though, made me want to reread the novels too!

The new one is such a failure. Regardless of the premise (which is pretty poor in its own right), it fails because the 'witty' comparison is not concise and snappy - it's relatively long-winded and somewhat baffling.

Oh god Carl. Can you please never never never EVER say "not to click a link" again? It made me curious what was so awful. Now I know and I will never be the same :( I think I'd rather watch 2 girls 1 cup than that animation :r

Oh, holy goodness, is there anything that needs to be said about the new strip? Really, Carl, I think you've reached the logical conclusion of all this that Randall SHOULD stop trying to be funny. It isn't working.

Problem with 658: Why do (at least) five people live in a 3-bedroom dorm room?Problem with 658: I've attended a major university for a number of years and have never heard of a 3-bedroom dorm roomProblem with 658: Ignoring the first two problems... the comic still isnt' funny.

I think the new comic is fairly funny, but maybe it's because I've taken too much chem. But Sherlock Holmes: I too attend a major university where there are dorms that have suites of 3 to 6 small bedrooms that share a common room.

Your first problem: 2 people to each bedroom. It's tough, I know.Your second problem: It certainly seems you've done exhaustive research there. Did you ever think that the university you attend might not contain every dorm room layout that exists?

I kind of liked the new comic, because if you've ever gone to a party at someone's house, it's actually 100% true. Couples end up in all the bedrooms, and single people are relegated to couches/floors. The electron/orbital analogy is a bit of a stretch, but worth an amused smile.

If your roommates kick you out of a bedroom you paid for so they can sleep with their girlfriends, you call your fucking RA on their asses; you don't sleep on the couch like a little fucking pussy-ass bitch. If you're such a pushover you can't stand up for your right to sleep in a bed that you fucking pay for, you don't fucking deserve to sleep in it.

--"If your roommates kick you out of a bedroom you paid for so they can sleep with their girlfriends, you call your fucking RA on their asses; you don't sleep on the couch like a little fucking pussy-ass bitch."

...I would. The couch is comfy and sociable. I sleep there almost as often as I sleep in my room anyway.

But I like xkcd, so I'm a pussy-ass bitch in your book to begin with. YMMV.

Math_Mage, are you a midget? Because I'm 5'3" and most couches are not long enough for me to comfortably sleep on when a few pillows are added. I would expect that most dorm room couches aren't going to be the super-long kind, either.

Sherlock Holmes, there are some suites at my school that come with three bedrooms and a common room, and house seven people: two smaller bedrooms that have two people each, and a larger room with three people. anyway i never understood sexiling, there are two beds and you and your lover should have enough consideration to understand your roommate needs to sleep. soooo agreed with poore, as usual.

Math_Mage: if you willingly sleep on the couch, you do not qualify as someone who has been "kicked out."

Stumbled across the blog somehow the other day, and after reading a bit here and there, I'm not really that impressed, although you occasionally do manage to make a point.

First off, you have an obsession with the meaning of "comic". Somewhere along the line, you got the impression that a comic must always make you LOL or ROFL. Plenty of great comics, in my experience, aren't always funny. Sometimes they're funny. Maybe insightful. Or intriguing. Graphically interesting and fascinating. Open up a newspaper: not all the comics will or are even intended to make you laugh. Yet anytime an xkcd strip fails to make you laugh, you say "it sucks". I read some of your earlier posts where you critiqued the comic strips dealing with programming. Really, they ARE quite funny, take it from someone who's done a fair amount of programming. Even if they aren't to you, well, that's your problem and not mine isn't it? If you don't get a joke reference, do a little googling and maybe you'll understand. But still, it probably won't be as funny if it's something you encounter on a daily basis. Maybe you aren't XKCD's target audience.

Another of your most frequent complaints which is rather stupid is that XKCD is unoriginal, or makes fun of things we've already seen before, or repeats itself. Have you read much literature? Have you noticed certain similarities between stories before? Take Calvin and Hobbes, one of my favorites. How many times is Spaceman Spiff going to be stranded on a planet, fight some monster, and suddenly wake up from his daydream to reveal he's attacking his teacher/principal/babysitter. SOOO TIRED OF THAT. Not really, because it's funny. But that's what you're doing with XKCD, all the time. Sometimes, Carl, something is funny once and it's funny the second time around too. Just because you can link back 300 strips prior and say "GUYS, He already DID this before, kinda. How lame!" doesn't really say much, in my opinion.

And sure, Randall is going to use internet memes because, well, they're popular and funny and everyone knows about them. It's making use of a cultural reference-very common and even critical for establishing a common ground with your audience. And being a geek comic, it's going to use them frequently; It's not valid criticism to say that he's using too many geeky references like memes and programming and TED talks etc etc when it's a comic that's supposed to be about stuff like that. It's kinda like criticizing a romance novel for including drama and steamy sex scenes all the time. It's the intended content, not some lazy repetition of a McGuffin over and over.

Dinosaur Comics is repetitive. Same jokes (from the little I've read-it's never caught my interest). The panels are even all the same every day (I buzzed through about 30 strips and they all used the same panels, so I'm assuming that's all the author ever does). That comic gets old after about 3 strips. It's not very funny and the writing is pretty stale. There's often too much text. Being concise takes effort, and DC seems to struggle in that department. You seem to like it a lot though, which is confusing since you seem to have an issue with XKCD repeating even occasionally.

As a scientist, math nut and all around geek, I find XKCD speaks to me more often than not. It's funny, often insightful, and well done. Perhaps quite importantly of a webcomic, it's updated consistently, which certainly helps it's fan base (vs, say, MegaTokyo-which even XKCD has made fun of in the past).

You certainly have a right to whine about XKCD and I'm happy to leave you here to do so, along with the following you have. I'll await the day when this small minority comes anywhere close to the popularity of the comic it critiques to give you due recognition however. Right now I still find your criticism lacking in factual basis. Having seen Primer (not 12 Angry Men, however), I certainly found this comic funny, as well as exceptionally detailed and impressive. Primer IS quite confusing when you watch it, although I enjoyed that about it.

"Dinosaur Comics is repetitive. Same jokes (from the little I've read-it's never caught my interest). The panels are even all the same every day (I buzzed through about 30 strips and they all used the same panels, so I'm assuming that's all the author ever does)."

Thanks for being reasonable and articulate. I appreciate it.Typical cuddlefish drivel: "Wow this is my first time ever seeing this site, and I am just about shocked to death that it exists and is popular to any degree. What horrible nasty snotty pretentious killjoys you are. I hope you all die in a fire. I never thought I'd find myself rooting on the trolls of any forum."

I enjoyed 658. It reminds me of the good old days of xkcd, when it didn't just make comparisons between science and romance, but rather made clever or interesting comparisons that weren't just memes or nerdculture references.

Beebe-Sweet Family, I take issue with many things in your post (such as you calling Dinosaur Comics "repetitive"), but I primarily take issue with the fact that you think internet memes are funny and popular. Popular: yes. Funny: only on rare occasions (of which xkcd is not one).

re: "I'll await the day when this small minority comes anywhere close to the popularity of the comic it critiques to give you due recognition however". I think this blog is a lot more popular than you give it credit for.

I haven't posted in a while, so hi everyone, hope ya'll are keeping well. And my goodness don't we have a lot to talk about. Hello Beebe! I'm Jay.

Stumbled across the blog somehow the other day, and after reading a bit here and there, I'm not really that impressed, although you occasionally do manage to make a point.

First off, you have an obsession with the meaning of "comic". Somewhere along the line, you got the impression that a comic must always make you LOL or ROFL. Plenty of great comics, in my experience, aren't always funny. Sometimes they're funny. Maybe insightful. Or intriguing. Graphically interesting and fascinating.

This is true. But what you're missing is that xkcd tries to be funny and fails.

When Randall tries to be insightful or intriguing, he has more success. Hence Carl's continuing case for The Illustrated Picto-blog or whatever. But this is not what most of his strips try to do.

And xkcd is in no way graphically interesting. I know you weren't necessarily saying it was, I'm just throwing that out there.

Open up a newspaper: not all the comics will or are even intended to make you laugh. Yet anytime an xkcd strip fails to make you laugh, you say "it sucks".

As I said, there is a clear difference here. Also most newspaper comics suck and I would not use them as an example for anything.

I read some of your earlier posts where you critiqued the comic strips dealing with programming. Really, they ARE quite funny, take it from someone who's done a fair amount of programming.

No. You're wrong. Take it from someone who's done a fair amount of programming, they're not.

Of course I have no way to make you believe this, but I suspect as time goes on, more and more people will come to agree with me.

Even if they aren't to you, well, that's your problem and not mine isn't it?

Actually, neither. It's Randall's.

If you don't get a joke reference, do a little googling and maybe you'll understand.

Actually, Carl wrote about this in his FAQ. Do a search on this page for um, "sucks hugely." It's a misconception to think that we don't get the references here - Carl usually does, and certainly the people in the comments do. Everyone here was an xkcd fan at some point - we're all nerds.

But still, it probably won't be as funny if it's something you encounter on a daily basis. Maybe you aren't XKCD's target audience.

If you spend any time at all on this site, you'll notice that this argument above all others makes people fly off the handle. We hear it so fucking much.

First, as I said, we are all in xkcd's target audience. We all enjoyed the jokes in the early comics - do you think they have become more obscure? If anything they've become less, and xkcd's target audience has grown larger. But people still drag out this tired, shitty argument.

Another of your most frequent complaints which is rather stupid is that XKCD is unoriginal, or makes fun of things we've already seen before, or repeats itself. Have you read much literature? Have you noticed certain similarities between stories before?

This is stupid. Can you really not see how this is stupid? Stories may reuse plot devices and themes, but they're not the SAME stories each time.

Take Calvin and Hobbes, one of my favorites. How many times is Spaceman Spiff going to be stranded on a planet, fight some monster, and suddenly wake up from his daydream to reveal he's attacking his teacher/principal/babysitter. SOOO TIRED OF THAT. Not really, because it's funny.

Stupid. Look, Calvin and Hobbes made jokes that were superficially similar, but it put a different spin on them each time. Also, Calvin and Hobbes had very good writing and very very good art, so when a strip was filler (rare) it was less immediately noticeable.

Looks like my comment was too long and the whole thing couldn't be posted. Really Blogger? Really?

But that's what you're doing with XKCD, all the time. Sometimes, Carl, something is funny once and it's funny the second time around too. Just because you can link back 300 strips prior and say "GUYS, He already DID this before, kinda. How lame!" doesn't really say much, in my opinion.

OK, first, I wouldn't only address your comment to Carl, since as far as a lot of people are concerned the real criticism gets done in the comments section. Anyway there are two reasons it's lame when xkcd does this: they're the SAME jokes each time, and sometimes there is no joke - Randall just references one of his old comics in the hopes that the reference will be enough to make people laugh.

And sure, Randall is going to use internet memes because, well, they're popular

Yesand funny

No

and everyone knows about them. It's making use of a cultural reference

subcultural

-very common and even critical for establishing a common ground with your audience. And being a geek comic, it's going to use them frequently; It's not valid criticism to say that he's using too many geeky references like memes and programming and TED talks etc etc when it's a comic that's supposed to be about stuff like that.

Look, we're aware it's a Comp Sci comic. No one has EVER SAID "lame, another joke about programming," or if they have they're an idiot. And you know what, Carl wrote about exactly this in his FAQ, which you obviously didn't read, so go do it now. "sucks hugely" yeah.

Memes can be funny but merely referencing the existence of a meme isn't funny, which is what Randall does. Also the memes he references are usually months out of date.

It's kinda like criticizing a romance novel for including drama and steamy sex scenes all the time. It's the intended content, not some lazy repetition of a McGuffin over and over.

Dinosaur Comics is repetitive. Same jokes (from the little I've read-it's never caught my interest). The panels are even all the same every day (I buzzed through about 30 strips and they all used the same panels, so I'm assuming that's all the author ever does). That comic gets old after about 3 strips. It's not very funny and the writing is pretty stale. There's often too much text. Being concise takes effort, and DC seems to struggle in that department. You seem to like it a lot though, which is confusing since you seem to have an issue with XKCD repeating even occasionally.

With DC the repetition is kind of the point. It's the gimmick. I'm not going to write any more about this since while I guess I like Dinosaur Comics I'm not as crazy about it as other people here and I don't read it very often.

As a scientist, math nut and all around geek, I find XKCD speaks to me more often than not. It's funny, often insightful, and well done.

Nah. I'm afraid we're at an impasse here. We just have a better sense of humor than you, though like I said, we of course can't make you believe that.

Perhaps quite importantly of a webcomic, it's updated consistently, which certainly helps it's fan base (vs, say, MegaTokyo-which even XKCD has made fun of in the past).

You certainly have a right to whine about XKCD

Don't fucking use the word whine. Use any word but that. You have no idea how many anons on this site have used that word and it's stupid every time. Call it bitching, complaining, kvetching, or whatever, just not that. Me, I prefer 'criticizing.'

If we're whining, who are we whining to? Answer me that. Randall? We know he doesn't read this site. And whining is plaintive and self-entitled. Little kids whine. Whatever you think about this site, we don't feel ENTITLED to a good webcomic - we just see that hey, it sucks, let's have some fun shitting all over it.

You know what I don't understand - why is criticizing a webcomic so stigmatized. Like, take the TV show Lost - I hate Lost, I think it's ridiculous, and after every episode I head over to my anti-Lost site to make fun of it. And that's fine, that's part of the enjoyment of the show. But when I do the same thing with a webcomic, it's pathetic. Beats me.

and I'm happy to leave you here to do so, along with the following you have. I'll await the day when this small minority comes anywhere close to the popularity of the comic it critiques to give you due recognition however.

Well, we're not looking for your recognition, but that day may come. There's way more criticism of xkcd now than there was say, two years ago. Before this blog, there was nothing - now people are criticizing it all over the place. I read the echochamber forums occasionally and people are even speaking out there.

Right now I still find your criticism lacking in factual basis. Having seen Primer (not 12 Angry Men, however), I certainly found this comic funny, as well as exceptionally detailed and impressive. Primer IS quite confusing when you watch it, although I enjoyed that about it.

I haven't seen either movie and I thought it was funny. I have no problem with this comic. The latest one, on the other hand.

--"Math_Mage, are you a midget? Because I'm 5'3" and most couches are not long enough for me to comfortably sleep on when a few pillows are added. I would expect that most dorm room couches aren't going to be the super-long kind, either."

As long as Carl feels it is within his rights to criticize xkcd, I feel it is within my rights to criticize stupid posts on xkcdsucks.

--"Math_Mage: if you willingly sleep on the couch, you do not qualify as someone who has been "kicked out.""

But the original comic does not specify whether anyone has been kicked out. That was The_P's unfounded extrapolation. I could reply to his actual premise, but I would rather reply to the premise he purports to be criticizing.

--"Also, you make a lot of stupid points. like that fucking "target audience" nonsense. xkcd is not the end-all nerd webcomic anymore."

A straight interpretation of Beebe's words does not lead to the conclusion that anyone who does not enjoy xkcd is less nerdy. I don't get it--Carl spends a lot of time talking about how xkcd's target audience isn't hardcore nerds anymore, providing as evidence the declining obscurity of the math/science references, and yet when an xkcd fan basically agrees with this assessment, you can't seem to get it through your head.

Also, sorry for deleting and reposting--I realized that I had misused the word "lampoon".

Beebe is saying that XKCD is funnier if you spend all day doing computer science stuff--that is, if you're a more gigantic nerd. Seems pretty straightforward to ME. What twisted hermeneutic are you applying? I want to use the word "haruspicy" but cannot quite work it in.

Wow, what a response. I was going to wait, but it arose so quickly, that now's a fine time.

I'll be brief.

To the "omg ur sew NURDY lol! but xkcd isn't for nerds!":

Wow, personal attack instead of rebuttal on the interwebs. I'm frightened, please don't kick sand in my face at the beach. Blah blah, yeah I'm nerdy/geeky/sciency/wtfever. And I could care less about your opinion. I could call you emo, or maybe angsty, or perhaps you're a dumb jock, or a Gen-Y (aka "It's-All-About-ME"). See how effective that is at proving my point that you're obviously too dumb to enjoy XKCD? It doesn't work in reverse either.

XKCD is obviously still for nerds, you folks apparently just want it to speak slowly to you so you get it. Or change to be more mainstream.

In fact, XKCD is SO OBVIOUSLY for nerds that you guys are continually finding it too obtuse or nerdy. I mean, the comment boards here are FILLED with complaints about nerd-cred, how Randy is trying to say Look-At-Me-I'm-So-Nerdy!, etc etc. I could cite, but this post would implode from the citation density (haha nerd joke, run for it!).

Anyhow, there's a word for all this:

Denial.

Thank you all, you made my day. I think I brought out raging fire in all the XKCD haters today. This was a particular favorite:

You're missing the point about XKCD. Try again to be effective at explaining why it's so funny?

And Jay's THREE POST LINE BY LINE DISSECTION! Wow, now THAT'S dedication to a cause! (there's an internet meme for you. And btw Jay - It's not an effective form of rebuttal. In rebuttal, you need to establish your OWN CASE, not just try and prove your opponents is stupid. Basic debate kiddo. Notice I didn't line-by-line the entire comment thread. Occasional citation is fine, but relying on someone else's case, line by line, to base a reply on just shows you don't have a leg to stand on.)

Lastly, @Femaletoth (Mal from xkcdsucks):That's exactly what I'm saying. What's complicated about that? Art is subjective. Not everybody, for instance, enjoys Picasso. Some hate Rembrandt. They think it's garbage. Yet plenty of people disagree. That's the nature of subjective content, and, in the end, is what's at the root of all that's wrong with this blog.

As they say in meme-land:You've been trolled. I'm going back to enjoying XKCD, and won't visit this cesspool of inanity and endless diatribe again. This was joyous fun bringing out the true level of conversation this blog is capable of.

PSFor most of this crowd, I'm sure this will seem tl;dr;. Too bad. Not my fault you're too lazy too read. (yes, how witty of you Mr. Lostman! oh wait, you then go on to quote me... did you read it or not? As the master of "successful webcomics" apparently, according to the wisdom of these boards. And at the tender age of just 19! If http://www.drunkduck.com/Blood_Martian_Flowers/index.php is the future of webcomic success, I truly do weep for the future. And btw, Lostman, citing a unsourced webpage that talks about "stupid rebuttals to criticism" that is filled with swearing, nonsense, hypocrisy, and internal inconsistency won't fly in the real world. Really. Enjoy your "reign" on the internet as the master of tl;dr;, GTFO, and whatever other dribble you have locked up in that cranium)

beebee: Actually, the line-by-line response is the ideal form of debate, but it does get really long really quick, so it's frequently not feasible. There's a few reasons for its ideal nature, however.

1) It's harder to ignore points. It's thorough and line-by-line, so if you do skip something, it's usually pretty apparent. There are numerous advantages to this for both sides--suffice it to say that "addressing everything the other person said" makes for a far better conversation than "only addressing the points that give you the most rhetorical ammunition."1a) It means that nothing that the person you're responding to said is wasted. This is more a basic courtesy thing, but it also means that they are held accountable for all of it.

2) The best way to frame a response to someone is by specifically citing what they have to say. Note that quoting someone does not prevent you from having anything new to say; it merely means that you are saying something in response to them. This is how Real Conversation works.

More to your point, if you ever drop a line like "basic debate" you are a dumbass. Anything you learned in debate club is wrong. Those rules do not apply to the real world, or to real conversation, anywhere. The primary use of debate club is to hone a particular set of skills: oral presentation, rhetoric, and, to a certain degree, research. It is not to teach you how to win arguments on the internet. Indeed, if all you take out of your debate classes is "that's now how you debate, that's bad debating, you're bad at debate," your debate classes have been worse than fruitless; they have actually made you dumber. Like the psych student who thinks that his chapter on abnormal psychology has given him the ultimate way to win an argument by diagnosing his opponent with a psychological disorder, you have learned worse than nothing. You have learned a bad thought habit. You have gone from innocent and ignorant to actively wrong, and you will continue to reinforce that wrong thinking until it is impossible to correct. In your case, you probably already have.

Certainly the "make your OWN case" argument is itself incredibly spurious. While the burden of proof is a squishy concept at best, it generally is held that the attacker (in this case, you) is required. Your charge is essentially that this blog sucks. If for some reason you think that convincing us of this is a worthy goal, it's all on you to convince us of it. We are not obligated to pull up independent evidence of how awesome it is.

Or, put another way. Let's say that, instead of an XKCD sucks blog, this were an 'XKCD is great' blog. If I were to come in and subsequently say 'no, man, XKCD sucks,' I'd be expected to back up my claims. The pro-XKCD people are not expected to subsequently prove to me that XKCD is, in fact, great.

Context is key. In real conversation, two separate people are not individually trying to prove their own points while discrediting their opponent's occasionally for rhetorical points. If I say that Nietzsche is an excellent moralist, in Real Conversation, if you disagree you don't make a point-by-point list of reasons you think he's not; you respond to my assertions, and then I respond to your responses. This is what social scientists call a "conversation."

The conversation is an ideal method of discussing ideas in the real world, because it allows for nuanced discussion, and even people who fundamentally disagree still gain something from the exchange. People who go into a conversation with a Debate Club mentality can't have a nuanced exchange because ignoring nuance earns rhetorical points; they can't gain something from the exchange because they are more concerned with winning than having a Real Conversation and, again, scoring rhetorical points.

But, uh, before you go patting yourself on the back too hard for 'raising the level of discourse'. We pretty regularly have intelligent conversations. This is not one of them (primarily because you are involved).

XKCD is obviously still for nerds, you folks apparently just want it to speak slowly to you so you get it. Or change to be more mainstream.

It you actually read Jay's post, you'd notice that he's saying the exact opposite. He's complaining that it's too mainstream and too accommodating to the vast crowd of people who don't know their routers from their RAID clusers.

I'm going back to enjoying XKCD, and won't visit this cesspool of inanity and endless diatribe again.

Don't you dare condescend to me, you little shit. You're only revealing your own skewed perspective.

Let's fucking clear this up - I am not "debating" with you, like this was debate class in fucking high school or something. That's juvenile and it never goes anywhere. I got over "debating" online when I was 14. Put on your reading cap, go back through my post, and see if I'm actually trying to prove anything to you, or anyone. See if I actually care whether you agree with me. I don't - when I reply like that it's because I think you have a number of misconceptions about this site and I want to explain things to you. I am taking the time out of my day to do you a fucking favor. It's a conversation and you interpret it as an argument. Fuck off, you ungrateful, self-important airhead.

Wait, where did you learn that stuff about debate? Was it actually debate class in high school? I could believe that, I really could. "/rolleyes/"

Yes, you fucking got to me. I readily admit it. Are you proud of yourself, does that feel good? Is that worth being proud of?

Few more things. "omg ur sew NURDY lol! but xkcd isn't for nerds!" No one said this. I'm not pulling some rhetorical ninja shit (maybe something I learned in debate class!) - no one even implied this. Are you looking for an excuse to be insulted? And the Cartoon Vaginas guy was obviously joking, not making a serious point. You're not as smart as you think you are. You're not dumb: you're average. You just wasted everyone's time.

Lastly,

You've been trolled. I'm going back to enjoying XKCD, and won't visit this cesspool of inanity and endless diatribe again. This was joyous fun bringing out the true level of conversation this blog is capable of.

No. Oh no. You're coming back here, and you're reading this right now, because you want to see how people reacted. People like you always do. You say you're trolling. Maybe you were from the beginning, maybe that's your excuse for looking like an idiot. Either way, well, congrats, we've been trolled. I hope you're satisfied. Just kidding, I hope you bleed out your pores.

Don't fucking use the word whine. Use any word but that. You have no idea how many anons on this site have used that word and it's stupid every time. Call it bitching, complaining, kvetching, or whatever, just not that. Me, I prefer 'criticizing.'

If we're whining, who are we whining to? Answer me that. Randall? We know he doesn't read this site. And whining is plaintive and self-entitled. Little kids whine.

Haha, I don't know what you THINK you're doing, bucko, but let me assure you of one thing: You are, for a fact, 100% WHINING. This whole site is one big whine. That you would try to act all outraged when someone calls you out on it, doesn't change the fact that you are whiny whiners with noone to whine to.

Nor does the fact that you can:

- Bring out the dictionary definition of "whine" and try to argue how you don't fit it- Say "Oh my god I love this and I'm going to frame it on my fireplace!!!1!" to try to make it seem like it doesn't affect you- Post up some strawman line-drawing that you got from god-knows-where scum like you hangs out on the net- or anything else

change the fact that you are a bunch of WHINERS, whiners who are so pathetic that they continue to whine when they don't even have anybody listening to them, who just can't accept the fact that a comic does not have them and only them as their target audience any more.

So why do those words and arguments make you guys "fly off the handle" like that? Because the truth stings, of course. You react to the reality you want to hide from.

- If every aspect of your argument is destroyed, accuse your opponent of not knowing how to debate. (Bonus points if you lead with something similar in your opening statement)- Say you'll be brief, admit it was a long post, accuse people for being lazy at the bottom of said post, slam Dinosaur Comics for being verbose, condescendingly remark that it takes effort to be concise.- If you're still getting destroyed, shout "I got the last word!" then leave.- Come back and post anonymously.

If you are on the couch by choice, you are not a pussy. If you're on the couch because "Oh, my roommate is fucking his girlfriend but I want to go to bed so I HAVE to sleep on the couch because I'm afraid of telling someone to stop doing something in a room I paid money for because I can't handle confrontation", then you ARE a pussy.

@Everyone:

Do not respond to trolls. Ignore them and they will go away. Remember ass turds guy? He disappeared after everyone was like, "whatever" and stopped responding to him.

Yeah, I enjoyed this one. There's a couple of things about it that I could remark on/question (I always assumed that the second raptor at the visitor centre was the other one from the kitchen), but I'm far too tired for that.

And I'm afraid that I too would like to see a Back to the Future one done. Or maybe INLANDEMPIRE...

Now, seriously, why people insist this is a whine-fest? We're just detracting a common dislike amongst ourselves, it's not our fault the fans stumble on this site and get their ideas wrong and start trying to debate but instead fail miserably and then take the easy way out!

...of course, having "xkcd" in the title doesn't help.

Anyway, bah. I'm out of this. Where's the next placeholder, Carl?

PS.: This comment box is sucking again. No, I never get tired of pointing this out!PPS.: Rob, you roxes!

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.